It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NRA declares opposition to reauthorizing the Violence Against Woman Act

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So then what is your suggestion?

Do nothing?




posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Isn't assault,murder already illegal?

Yep.

So what's your problem?



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

That's right


Equal application of the law. Harsh penalties for crimes. But never arbitrarily limiting certain rights but not others (ie: gun rights vs. knife ownership, car ownership, chemical ownership, lighter ownership, rope ownership, etc)

Why are only guns targeted by the limp anti-gunners?

Besides, when the government "revokes" someone's right they delude themselves into believing they were the one who granted the right in the first place. Our second amendment isn't the government's to revoke.

In a heavily armed society, those who engage in deadly conduct will be weeded out through the natural right of self-defense and defense of others.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

No, that is just silly.

Everything covered by that law is already a crime.

Furthermore, by empowering all citizens to arm themselves, victims of such crimes will have the ultimate "Trump card" against such an attacker. Those who engage in deadly conduct will be weeded out by a well armed/well trained citizenry.

We don't need government trying to infringe on rights they didn't grant in the first place.

Did 2A stutter with "Shall not be infringed" ?
edit on 4/4/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Bluntone22

But anyone who wants to debate this or thinks it is a bad law is "against violence against women", right?
phoney baloney bs is what it is


Obviously not. Some of us have managed to discuss this without going to that level... we all can do the same. Sure, some people will want to go there, but no one has to, and doing so just plays their game.

And in this specific situation, I think those who want to push this through are counting on opponents to focus on the men vs women aspect, and being ignorant of the part forcing men -- including men convictedviolent and sexual crimes -- into women's prisons. They WANT exactly this battle because it's all about divide-and-conquer.

Don't play their game and it cannot and therefore will not work.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

www.nytimes.com...


WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association, the nation’s largest gun lobby, has settled on its next target on Capitol Hill: blocking Congress from reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, a 1994 law that assists victims of domestic and sexual violence.


Expected from TNYT I guess....
The evil nra is against violence against women...

www.npr.org...


NRA Pressure Puts GOP In Tight Spot Over Bill Protecting Domestic Abuse Victims

The House will take a divisive vote Thursday to renew a lapsed 1994 law to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence because it includes new provisions to expand transgender rights and restrict gun rights.

The Democratic additions to the law have exposed fault lines within the GOP as it wrestles with how to regain support among women.

Gee even the taxpayer funded npr is pushing this crap, cause you know if you are gop you have lost the support of women....

even hipster news outlet vice is pushing the same turd

news.vice.com...



WASHINGTON — The Violence Against Women Act isn’t supposed to be controversial. But the landmark 1994 law, set for re-authorization, has hit an NRA-sized snag: The gun lobby opposes the measure and is threatening to hold any lawmaker who votes for it accountable in the next election.


IMO it is a sideways attempt to gain ground in the effort to subvert the second ammendment.
Funny how the msm seems to support that.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   
OP, perhaps you should practice some critical thinking.

Is it likely that the NRA are against a bill that aims to stop violence against women? Or is it more likely the contents of the bill includes something that has nothing to do with violence against women and aims to curtail people's rights?

Have a think.
Without even reading the bill, your radar should be up when you see such ridiculous headlines.

Try and be part of the solution and not part of the problem.




posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I think we ALL need to be very, very careful about latching on to proposed legislation like this.

Its been years now where "they" will market a bill using language that no sane person would dislike.

But!

Hidden within is a metric crapton of horrific ideas.

In other words: Political Group A introduces the "Super Happy Fun Time" bill. People who love Super Happy Fun Time are all-in right off the bat, combating critics with statements like "how could you be so against Fun?"

Well, they are having an issue with what the bill is actually pushing through. The whole "Death to all Penguins" bit that supporters seem to have overlooked in their eagerness.

Literally all they do is frame the bill in a way that facilitates calling detractors immoral and evil, rather than.. you know.. just disagreeing.

Thus the cycle continues..



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

well posted
an idea all need to understand



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


Besides, when the government "revokes" someone's right they delude themselves into believing they were the one who granted the right in the first place. Our second amendment isn't the government's to revoke.


Thank you -- yes! Rights are granted by our Creator... not government.

And just to flesh it out for the purposes of this discussion, we have to right to bear arms because we have the right to protect and defend our lives, our persons and our property. When one intent on killing or even causing great bodily harm has a firearm, and their intended victim does not have a firearm, the victim is at an almost impossible disadvantage. And placed in that position by government.

Even Obama knows you don't take a knife to a gun fight, eh???



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

an Assault that resulted in actual bodily injury, or in which a weapon was used as part of the assault, would be considered a felony.

Felons cannot legally own a firearm, or vote.

Whats the point of this law?



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Boadicea

www.npr.org...

NRA Pressure Puts GOP In Tight Spot Over Bill Protecting Domestic Abuse Victims

The House will take a divisive vote Thursday to renew a lapsed 1994 law to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence because it includes new provisions to expand transgender rights and restrict gun rights.

The Democratic additions to the law have exposed fault lines within the GOP as it wrestles with how to regain support among women.


I'm actually quite surprised -- and encouraged! -- to see the expansion of transgender rights mentioned. Do they even realize yet that much of their loss of support among women is because of their push to expand transgender "rights"?


IMO it is a sideways attempt to gain ground in the effort to subvert the second ammendment. Funny how the msm seems to support that.


Well, the effort to remove 2A rights won't end until... well... we have no 2A rights. This seems to be a twofer though... trying to kill two birds with one stone so to speak.
edit on 4-4-2019 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Seconded on that Boadicea!!!


It is terrible that some actually believe government (specifically the legislative branch) should have the authority to nullify our unalienable rights or any part of the Constitution for any reason


And just to flesh it out for the purposes of this discussion, we have to right to bear arms because we have the right to protect and defend our lives, our persons and our property. When one intent on killing or even causing great bodily harm has a firearm, and their intended victim does not have a firearm, the victim is at an almost impossible disadvantage. And placed in that position by government.


Spot on!!

When you disarm a population, only the criminals and government have the weapons. Way I see it is... what possible reason could they offer us in exchange for giving up this right? There is nothing on God's green Earth anyone could give me or do for me to make me give this right up. Heck, they could offer me 1,000,000 and I would tell them where they can stick it

Personally, and this is just my opinion, any attempt to confiscate firearms/accessories of firearms/ammo/gun related items for any reason or to enact any further illegal gun laws will immediately and without recourse cause a civil war. I'm not an alarmist, but we're already on the brink and those who pay attention to history knows what happens when a population is disarmed

Given how close we are to the edge as it is, I find it very interesting to read of these last-hurrah style pushes for gun-control they are making

Anyhow, I really appreciate your reply and it is heartening to see other Patriots out there unwilling to budge on our Constitution and our means to Enforce the Constitution (firearms, militias, etc)



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: smkymcnugget420
a reply to: dfnj2015

an Assault that resulted in actual bodily injury, or in which a weapon was used as part of the assault, would be considered a felony.

Felons cannot legally own a firearm, or vote.

Whats the point of this law?


Their point is to expand government and of course grant government yet another set of powers not specifically granted to it by the Constitution

Many of these lefties have it backwards, they actually believe the Constitution is supposed to "regulate us" as opposed to keeping the government in a perpetual choke hold to ensure the Citizenry always holds a trump card over a runaway overreaching or infringing government



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 11:55 AM
link   
What's next???

If you don't recycle, you're abusing the earth and therefore you should be barred FOR LIFE from purchasing a gun?

I say 'purchasing' because at this point it's like sticking your thumb in a leaking dam. If you want a weapon, YOU CAN CERTAINLY OBTAIN ONE like any other person, criminal or not.

Taking away someone's ability to legally purchase a firearm is futile at this point because the black market is WAAAAAY larger than the legal one.

Not to mention someone who loses their rights over a domestic dispute may become really unhinged and blame the reporting partner for that. Believe me, its easier and quite frankly FASTER to hit up the homeboys down the street for a piece.

I swear, bored and insecure legislators think underlying, systemic problems go away with the stroke of a pen.

The idea that sometime during a domestic dispute one or both parties are contemplating their gun rights is downright asinine.

This is just another crumb snatching policy to disarm citizens and further stifle the proliferation and exercise of the 2A.

Period.

edit on E30America/ChicagoThu, 04 Apr 2019 12:02:05 -05004pmThursdayth12pm by EternalShadow because: edit



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Thank you!

I try not to let myself lose sight of the spirit of the law for the letter of the law. Taking away the power of the individual to protect and defend himself only empowers the criminals who will have a gun if they want it regardless of the law.

And, of course, we know exactly who has the most guns of all, eh?



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

Sums it up perfectly



Not to mention someone who loses their rights over a domestic dispute may become really unhinged and blame the reporting partner for that. Believe me, its easier and quite frankly FASTER to hit up the homeboys down the street for a piece.

I swear, bored and insecure legislators think underlying, systemic problems go away with the stroke of a pen.


Or the affect it has on the many who have their rights taken out of retribution/retaliation. False reporting is a very real thing. One doesn't even get a hearing for a "Temporary emergency order of protection" so due process is supposed to go out the window according to an accusation? These people are nuts

As Americans, we need to draw a hard line in the sand with our rights. The mistakes our past people have made by allowing government to expand an encroach may not be our fault, but it has fallen squarely on our shoulders to mitigate and correct

No more infringement! Don't budge, not one inch.

We need to start playing for keeps and playing to win or we will lose this fight due to our own inaction and paralysis

This "one last hurrah" attempt at subverting as many gun rights as possible is very telling of where we are in our state of discourse. 2019 will be a nasty year. And I fear 2020 will be the year things finally kick off and become real to most people
edit on 4/4/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


Many of these lefties have it backwards, they actually believe the Constitution is supposed to "regulate us" as opposed to keeping the government in a perpetual choke hold to ensure the Citizenry always holds a trump card over a runaway overreaching or infringing government


And then infer that the government has RIGHTS as opposed to those powers and authorities expressly granted and enumerated by the consent and will of the people... and ONLY those powers granted and enumerated!!!

You're right. It's bassackwards and it infuriates me.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Do nothing then.

got it.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

That is the idea behind due process.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join